ILNews

Court hears appeal over state's objections

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A man who appealed his burglary conviction over the state’s objection did not fully understand the terms of his plea agreement, the Indiana Court of Appeals held Friday.

Danny Holloway was charged with six felonies and agreed to plead guilty to Class B felony burglary and to waive his right to appeal, with the state agreeing to drop the other charges. But although Holloway signed the agreement, at his combined guilty plea and sentencing hearing, the judge told Holloway at least twice that he would be able to appeal, and the state did not object.

The appeals court cited Bonilla v. State, 907 N.E.2d 586 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009), in its decision to hear Holloway’s appeal: “This advisement occurred . . . before Bonilla received the benefit of his bargain. . . . In light of the contradictory and confusing information Bonilla received at his guilty plea hearing . . . we conclude that he did not waive the right to appeal his sentence.” The court held that Holloway, similarly, did not knowingly and intelligently waive his right to appeal.

In July of 2010, Holloway broke into the home of a woman who knew him. She was on a mattress on the floor, sleeping with her three children and woke up when Holloway tried to remove her jeans. She saw Holloway kneeling at her side, and he then fled.

In Danny Holloway v. State of Indiana, No. 49A05-1011-CR-703, Holloway appealed his sentence as inappropriate. As part of his plea agreement, Holloway’s initial executed sentence would be capped at 10 years. The trial court sentenced him to 16 years with 10 years executed, six years suspended, and five years of probation. The appeals court held that because his burglary was not demonstrably less egregious than a “typical” burglary – and because of his criminal background – the sentence was appropriate.

Holloway’s record includes three juvenile offenses, fifteen adult convictions, and three probation revocations.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  2. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  3. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  4. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

  5. Pass Legislation to require guilty defendants to pay for the costs of lab work, etc as part of court costs...

ADVERTISEMENT